Losers lose, and when they lose they need someone to blame. It must be the reds, they are the reason we are incompetent chimps and got stripped of power....
By the way you only need to look at the words of the revered and saintly James Comey to understand how HIllary broke the law.
The same Comey who testified under oath on May 3 that no one including Trump put any pressure on him. Now that pales to an invisible document read over the phone to the NY Times but it does bring perjury in to play. Again
By all means continue with your very rational Trump Derangement Syndrome.
You're counting chickens and all I see at the moment are eggs.
What?
Comey perjuring and Trump obstructing are not mutually exclusive. You don't know that document doesn't exist.
I didn't say either way. I said accurately that it is a phantom read over the phone. Comey's testimony under oath is a matter of record. Was he lying then or is he lying in the alleged letter no one has seen?
I know that may seem irrational, but what can I say?
Seems like a lot of machinations for a phantom. Are you sure you know more than the senate? Your second poont stands, although Trump hasn't exactly soothed anyone's fears about his honesty.
I'm not sure why I need to know more than the Senate when I know how to read
By the way you only need to look at the words of the revered and saintly James Comey to understand how HIllary broke the law.
The same Comey who testified under oath on May 3 that no one including Trump put any pressure on him. Now that pales to an invisible document read over the phone to the NY Times but it does bring perjury in to play. Again
By all means continue with your very rational Trump Derangement Syndrome.
False. The questioning was limited to whether or not anyone at the DOJ put any pressure on Comey in the Russia investigation. At no point was Trump mentioned.
I know you're used to the Kim Grinolds version of interviews, but a real lawyer will tell you only to answer what is explicitly asked of you. In this case, that question only referred to the AG/DOJ.
Watch any testimony of law enforcement and DOJ officials, they don't ad lib this shit. They're professionals.
Not sure how exactly Comey's testimony on May 3 and what the memo say are contradictory or any form of perjury.
On Feb 14 Trump asks Pence and Sessions to leave room and let him speak privately to Comey, says “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Comey records in his memos that Trump said this. Goes back to doing his job
In the May 3 testimony Comey is asked to clarify the FBI's independence from the DOJ apparatus” and asked, “If the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?” He says no, he hasn't been "told to stop". He doesn't mention his conversation with Trump because a) he was asked about pressure from AG or DOJ not POTUS/White House and b) being asked is different than being told and nothing Trump had done to that point was hindering investigation. He also says the investigation is going full steam ahead.
On May 9 Trump fires Comey and the next day goes on TV and says he was thinking of "this Russia thing" when he did it. This now comes across as "I asked Comey to let this go and he didn't do it". Firing the head of the FBI, well now there's some political pressure to shut down an investigation.
But yeahhhh, a guy who's career FBI with a reputation for non-partisanship and unimpeachable integrity is probably likely to spout off and perjure himself when talking to a bunch of Senators in a routine hearing.
Not sure how exactly Comey's testimony on May 3 and what the memo say are contradictory or any form of perjury.
On Feb 14 Trump asks Pence and Sessions to leave room and let him speak privately to Comey, says “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Comey records in his memos that Trump said this. Goes back to doing his job
In the May 3 testimony Comey is asked to clarify the FBI's independence from the DOJ apparatus” and asked, “If the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?” He says no, he hasn't been "told to stop". He doesn't mention his conversation with Trump because a) he was asked about pressure from AG or DOJ not POTUS/White House and b) being asked is different than being told and nothing Trump had done to that point was hindering investigation. He also says the investigation is going full steam ahead.
On May 9 Trump fires Comey and the next day goes on TV and says he was thinking of "this Russia thing" when he did it. This now comes across as "I asked Comey to let this go and he didn't do it". Firing the head of the FBI, well now there's some political pressure to shut down an investigation.
But yeahhhh, a guy who's career FBI with a reputation for non-partisanship and unimpeachable integrity is probably likely to spout off and perjure himself when talking to a bunch of Senators in a routine hearing.
We also know that Comey violated longstanding Justice Department protocol when he decided to disclose the very few facts that he actually did disclose in his letter to the Republican chairs. And we know that he wrote the letter over the explicit objections of Attorney General Loretta Lynch.Taken together, these actions constitute a fireable offense.
Comey, WikiLeak, the Russians, election chintegrity, etc. have been kicked from one end of the political pitch to the other over the past 18 months.
I know you're used to the Kim Grinolds version of interviews, but a real lawyer will tell you only to answer what is explicitly asked of you. In this case, that question only referred to the AG/DOJ.
Watch any testimony of law enforcement and DOJ officials, they don't ad lib this shit. They're professionals.
That glosses over his duty to report any attempt to influence him
I know you're used to the Kim Grinolds version of interviews, but a real lawyer will tell you only to answer what is explicitly asked of you. In this case, that question only referred to the AG/DOJ.
Watch any testimony of law enforcement and DOJ officials, they don't ad lib this shit. They're professionals.
That glosses over his duty to report any attempt to chinfluence him
I know you're used to the Kim Grinolds version of interviews, but a real lawyer will tell you only to answer what is explicitly asked of you. In this case, that question only referred to the AG/DOJ.
Watch any testimony of law enforcement and DOJ officials, they don't ad lib this shit. They're professionals.
That glosses over his duty to report any attempt to influence him
This why I read the tug tavern. Where else are you going to find in-depth legal analysis from riverside county's finest carpet installer?
I know you're used to the Kim Grinolds version of interviews, but a real lawyer will tell you only to answer what is explicitly asked of you. In this case, that question only referred to the AG/DOJ.
Watch any testimony of law enforcement and DOJ officials, they don't ad lib this shit. They're professionals.
That glosses over his duty to report any attempt to influence him
This why I read the tug tavern. Where else are you going to find in-depth legal analysis from riverside county's finest carpet installer?
Actually in America the reasonable assumption is innocent until proven guilty or at least until there is more than nothing but hot air by political opponents.
Trump can defend himself all he wants regardless of the birther thing or anything else. And he is going to.
If you can't see the difference in how the media treats him I can't help you.
the media is not his problem
I'm glad to hear that you want to give your guy the benefit of the doubt. Since innocence until proven guilty is important to you I'm sure you have always applied that standard to Hillary and Obama, right?
Hillary did in fact send classified information via her private email server. She requested her aid Huma to remove classified headings from emails and to send them out. Her emails were also sent to Weiners computers. This is a federal felony. People go to jail for it. Comey gave her a pass.
Their has been absolutely nothing in the way of evidence or findings of any kind indicating trump has done anything illegal. Nothing. The media is calling for impeachment. No double standards here!
Sending an email of a weiner could be a felony. Sending an email to Weiner isn't a felony.
HTH
It most certainly is my maroonic friend. Secret is secret. Their pain's a comin'!
Actually in America the reasonable assumption is innocent until proven guilty or at least until there is more than nothing but hot air by political opponents.
Trump can defend himself all he wants regardless of the birther thing or anything else. And he is going to.
If you can't see the difference in how the media treats him I can't help you.
the media is not his problem
I'm glad to hear that you want to give your guy the benefit of the doubt. Since innocence until proven guilty is important to you I'm sure you have always applied that standard to Hillary and Obama, right?
Hillary did in fact send classified information via her private email server. She requested her aid Huma to remove classified headings from emails and to send them out. Her emails were also sent to Weiners computers. This is a federal felony. People go to jail for it. Comey gave her a pass.
Their has been absolutely nothing in the way of evidence or findings of any kind indicating trump has done anything illegal. Nothing. The media is calling for impeachment. No double standards here!
Sending an email of a weiner could be a felony. Sending an email to Weiner isn't a felony.
HTH
It most certainly is my maroonic friend. Secret is secret. Their pain's a comin'!
Actually in America the reasonable assumption is innocent until proven guilty or at least until there is more than nothing but hot air by political opponents.
Trump can defend himself all he wants regardless of the birther thing or anything else. And he is going to.
If you can't see the difference in how the media treats him I can't help you.
the media is not his problem
I'm glad to hear that you want to give your guy the benefit of the doubt. Since innocence until proven guilty is important to you I'm sure you have always applied that standard to Hillary and Obama, right?
Hillary did in fact send classified information via her private email server. She requested her aid Huma to remove classified headings from emails and to send them out. Her emails were also sent to Weiners computers. This is a federal felony. People go to jail for it. Comey gave her a pass.
Their has been absolutely nothing in the way of evidence or findings of any kind indicating trump has done anything illegal. Nothing. The media is calling for impeachment. No double standards here!
When you've got Boobs and AZCuck WTF'ing your poasts, you know you're speaking the truth.
They WTF all my poasts. The little band of "Travelers". They probably banged Obungholes mommy too.
Not sure how exactly Comey's testimony on May 3 and what the memo say are contradictory or any form of perjury.
On Feb 14 Trump asks Pence and Sessions to leave room and let him speak privately to Comey, says “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Comey records in his memos that Trump said this. Goes back to doing his job
In the May 3 testimony Comey is asked to clarify the FBI's independence from the DOJ apparatus” and asked, “If the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?” He says no, he hasn't been "told to stop". He doesn't mention his conversation with Trump because a) he was asked about pressure from AG or DOJ not POTUS/White House and b) being asked is different than being told and nothing Trump had done to that point was hindering investigation. He also says the investigation is going full steam ahead.
On May 9 Trump fires Comey and the next day goes on TV and says he was thinking of "this Russia thing" when he did it. This now comes across as "I asked Comey to let this go and he didn't do it". Firing the head of the FBI, well now there's some political pressure to shut down an investigation.
But yeahhhh, a guy who's career FBI with a reputation for non-partisanship and unimpeachable integrity is probably likely to spout off and perjure himself when talking to a bunch of Senators in a routine hearing.
Comey was NEVER and FBI agent. He's a political appointee by Obozo.
Trump can indeed say "can you let this go". That is not obstruction in any way, means, shape or form.
Actually in America the reasonable assumption is innocent until proven guilty or at least until there is more than nothing but hot air by political opponents.
Trump can defend himself all he wants regardless of the birther thing or anything else. And he is going to.
If you can't see the difference in how the media treats him I can't help you.
the media is not his problem
I'm glad to hear that you want to give your guy the benefit of the doubt. Since innocence until proven guilty is important to you I'm sure you have always applied that standard to Hillary and Obama, right?
Hillary did in fact send classified information via her private email server. She requested her aid Huma to remove classified headings from emails and to send them out. Her emails were also sent to Weiners computers. This is a federal felony. People go to jail for it. Comey gave her a pass.
Their has been absolutely nothing in the way of evidence or findings of any kind indicating trump has done anything illegal. Nothing. The media is calling for impeachment. No double standards here!
Sending an email of a weiner could be a felony. Sending an email to Weiner isn't a felony.
HTH
It most certainly is my maroonic friend. Secret is secret. Their pain's a comin'!
Hi. I've got a two word question for ya. Ready?
Mens rea?
I have a one word answer. Ready?
Training.
They were all trained, and signed off on that training, to recognize classified material even if it was not marked. Including what systems and means it can be communicated by. The act of doing it is : ready? Prime Facie evidence. it's quite obvious they intended to as Hillary set up her own server and instructed Huma in an email to strip the classified headings prior to sending classified documents out. Sure sounds like intent. Oh and last I checked Anthony Wiener doesn't have clearance.
Hope this helps:
Prima facie. Latin for "at first sight." Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning "sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;" e.g., prima facie evidence.
Actually in America the reasonable assumption is innocent until proven guilty or at least until there is more than nothing but hot air by political opponents.
Trump can defend himself all he wants regardless of the birther thing or anything else. And he is going to.
If you can't see the difference in how the media treats him I can't help you.
the media is not his problem
I'm glad to hear that you want to give your guy the benefit of the doubt. Since innocence until proven guilty is important to you I'm sure you have always applied that standard to Hillary and Obama, right?
Hillary did in fact send classified information via her private email server. She requested her aid Huma to remove classified headings from emails and to send them out. Her emails were also sent to Weiners computers. This is a federal felony. People go to jail for it. Comey gave her a pass.
Their has been absolutely nothing in the way of evidence or findings of any kind indicating trump has done anything illegal. Nothing. The media is calling for impeachment. No double standards here!
Sending an email of a weiner could be a felony. Sending an email to Weiner isn't a felony.
HTH
It most certainly is my maroonic friend. Secret is secret. Their pain's a comin'!
Hi. I've got a two word question for ya. Ready?
Mens rea?
I have a one word answer. Ready?
Training.
They were all trained, and signed off on that training, to recognize classified material even if it was not marked. Including what systems and means it can be communicated by. The act of doing it is : ready? Prime Facie evidence. it's quite obvious they intended to as Hillary set up her own server and instructed Huma in an email to strip the classified headings prior to sending classified documents out. Sure sounds like intent. Oh and last I checked Anthony Wiener doesn't have clearance.
Hope this helps:
Prima facie. Latin for "at first sight." Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning "sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;" e.g., prima facie evidence.
The hammer is going to drop any day now. Hillary lost, get over it.
Comments
washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/18/james-comey-higher-ups-never-asked-halt-fbi-invest/
Very rational.
I'm more of a fake lawyer than creepy and I would love to get that fuck on the stand
Watch any testimony of law enforcement and DOJ officials, they don't ad lib this shit. They're professionals.
On Feb 14 Trump asks Pence and Sessions to leave room and let him speak privately to Comey, says “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Comey records in his memos that Trump said this. Goes back to doing his job
In the May 3 testimony Comey is asked to clarify the FBI's independence from the DOJ apparatus” and asked, “If the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?” He says no, he hasn't been "told to stop". He doesn't mention his conversation with Trump because a) he was asked about pressure from AG or DOJ not POTUS/White House and b) being asked is different than being told and nothing Trump had done to that point was hindering investigation. He also says the investigation is going full steam ahead.
On May 9 Trump fires Comey and the next day goes on TV and says he was thinking of "this Russia thing" when he did it. This now comes across as "I asked Comey to let this go and he didn't do it". Firing the head of the FBI, well now there's some political pressure to shut down an investigation.
But yeahhhh, a guy who's career FBI with a reputation for non-partisanship and unimpeachable integrity is probably likely to spout off and perjure himself when talking to a bunch of Senators in a routine hearing.
J?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/18/stocks-surged-as-trading-floors-watched-breaking-infowars-video-it-was-two-weeks-old-and-wrong
Mens rea?
Trump can indeed say "can you let this go". That is not obstruction in any way, means, shape or form.
Training.
They were all trained, and signed off on that training, to recognize classified material even if it was not marked. Including what systems and means it can be communicated by. The act of doing it is : ready? Prime Facie evidence. it's quite obvious they intended to as Hillary set up her own server and instructed Huma in an email to strip the classified headings prior to sending classified documents out. Sure sounds like intent. Oh and last I checked Anthony Wiener doesn't have clearance.
Hope this helps:
Prima facie. Latin for "at first sight." Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning "sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;" e.g., prima facie evidence.